Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions" channel.

only 2% of the country is 200 meters above sea level so its a flat land good for invading with tanks :^)
6
"nationalism that discriminates" Nationalism discriminates. All organizations discriminate. Why can't nazis join the Green party? Isn't that discrimination? Why can't my grandma join the NHL all star team? Why can't 12 year olds buy alcohol? Why can't I just walk into peoples homes? "unified in its diversity" Would Poland have been a better country if Hitlers German settlers had immigrated there? In what way? Wouldn't that just cause ethnic tensions? Why would Yugoslavia and the Austro-Hungrian empire be an ideal for other countries to become like? I rather see those states as historical examples to avoid.
3
This argument could be said about every country in Europe since they all hard serfdom to some degree. Polands aristocracy was strong - and thats the reason why the King did not have much power to collect taxes or build an army strong enough to defend the country. The aristocrats paid no taxes and dumped all the tax burden upon the peasants - just like in France and Habsburg Austria, Denmark and in Russia. So of course did those states punch below their own weight when it came to military and economic achievements. While countries with a free peasantry and progressive taxation - like England and Sweden punched well above their own weight.
2
Sweden conquered Moscow in 1610. Poland did the same. Sweden also conquered Poland and started an invasion of Russia in 1707. Most Europeans believed the Swedish army to be unstoppable like Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941. But Russia burned down their own land to not give the Swedish army anything it could eat, and one of the coldest Russian winters in history killed many Swedish soldiers. So the Swedish army was smaller than before and it was starved and did not have much gun powder... but it still managed to beat a twice as strong Russian force at the battle of Poltava in 1709. The Russian army was fleeing in chaos and the Russian King believed that the battle was lost. But the Swedish army got disorganized. The horsemen did ride away and left the foot soldiers alone on the battlefield. And without support they could not launch a final attack to kick the Russians away, Hours were lost. And the Russian army got time to recover. And it could then launch a counter attack that slaughtered the outnumbered Swedish infantry. And when the Swedish horsemen arrived to help had the battle already been lost. And Russia was saved from destruction. A Swedish victory could have meant that the Ukrainian people could have joined the Swedish army's struggle against Russia. Russia could have gotten revolts and a civil war as the Tzar would become unpopular after a 10 year long failed war against the Swedes. And the Ottoman empire could have used the opportunity to take revenge on Russia and take back lost lands. And Persia - which was another of Russia's enemies - could also have declared war on Russia. And the Russian army would have been unable to deal with all those threats. And who knows what would have happened then? Would Russia have been utterly destroyed? Perhaps.
2
I think the polish-swedish marriage was a disaster for both countries. It brought over 50 years of war and hostilities and also dragged Poland into war with Russia and Sweden into Germany because of it. The deluge caused enormous suffering. Sweden failed to conquer Poland even if it came close to doing so, and wrecked the country and killed 20% of its population. Sweden's economy was destroyed by all wars and the Swedish empire was exhausted, and made it vulnerable to aggression from its neighbors - which started the Great Northern war and brought the Swedish empire down in a 20 years long war. And Russia took over the Baltic provinces and became the new strongest power in the Baltic sea. Poland survived the Swedish invasion of 1650. But the country was so badly damaged that it had still not recovered 100 years later. And this weakness did allow its neighbors - Russia, Prussia and Austria to divide it up, and wipe the country out from the history books. All those wars between Poland and Sweden were fought only because of some stupid dynastic struggle, over who had the right to the title as King of Sweden. Sigismund's claims were perhaps understandable, but the next rulers of Poland was uninterested in the title, and diplomacy and negotiations could probably have prevented an unnecessary war - which could perhaps have saved both the Swedish empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from destruction. Strangely enough did the Swedes never try this idea of diplomacy. And neither did the Poles. Instead was war the solution they tried.
2
The problem with Belgium is its many rivers that are difficult to cross. And the land easily turns into soft mud that is very wet and uncomfortable to walk in - ask any World war 1 veteran fighting in Belgium.
1
Serbia did lots of stuff in the 1900s that weren't so honorable to put it kindly
1
The good style of capitalism happened 1945-1975 in USA and Europe, while in Japan and Korea it is still going. But the Capitalism Europe have today is just dissapointing junk - thanks to the EU to a large part. So the dreams during the cold war Poles had about becoming rich and free like a western country are dreams they will have to wait for longer than they had expected. Much is neoliberalisms fault. But some fault is with the Poles themselves. Nobody forces them to have a huge military budget and not using that money for other things.
1
@KaiTenSatsuma This is what I call neoliberalism. Others call it hardcore capitalism. But i call it neoliberalism since it is its own variant of capitalism. You can do capitalism in many ways. You can have a mixed economy like post-war Sweden with strong capital controls, much public ownership, hard taxation and government sponsoring of key industries. It worked very well. The country was ranked as the richest country on earth by the late 1960s and had the fourth strongest airforce in the world. But then did Sweden join the EU in 1995. Everything got privatized. Government support for industries was banned. Capital controls was banned - which also forced governments to lower taxes on the rich to avoid capital flight, and taxes on the poor and average people had to go instead up to fill the budget hole. Protectionism was no longer allowed according to EU rules. So now have Sweden lost Ericsson to Japan. Its pharmaceutical industry (Astra and Pharmacia upjohn) to England and America. Volvo become Chinese. Our construction sector is now Swiss. Our mines and forests are owned by Finland. Our grocery stores are owned by Danes and Norwegians. Out chemical industry (AGA) is now German. Our shipbuilding industry (Kockums) is now German. Our military industry is now all foreign owned, Bofors is now American, SAAB and Hägglunds is now owned by British BAE systems. Even our cookie maker Göteborgs kex is now owned by foreigners (Latvia). So the country have been totally de-industrialized thanks to our EU membership. And the responsible politicians deserves to be hanged for high treason.
1
@KaiTenSatsuma That's why you need a mixed economy to force the market to be more long term. Instead of shareholder profit maximization as in US/British stock market capitalism - you could force companies to act more long term. In Japan do friendly large companies own the majority of the shares in other companies, so they can protect each other from hostile take overs, and they therefore do not have to participate in short-term nonsense like share buybacks as in USA. In Germany have labor unions a seat at the decision making table of every large corporation and can veto decisions that would be harmful for the workers, the community or the longterm health of the company. In France do the government oftentimes own shares in private companies and can vet short term decisions to plunder the company. And Sweden got a special system of family ownership and stock market shares which makes short-term hostile take overs impossible. So this stupid system of short term capitalism could be done away with. As it was in the past. Before Reagan, Thatcher, EU and all that stupid neoliberal crap. "Looks like Western Capitalism" I rather have East Asian capitalism than modern western style capitalism. All I am saying is that there are different ways to do things in Capitalism. Not all forms of Capitalism is the same. Scandinavian and East Asian do work well. I do not think a 100% centrally planned economy will solve anything. Nor do I think that a 100% non-profit system will ever exist. Because we live in a world with scarce resources. So every hospital have to prioritize their resources usage. I like the socialist ideal that we should produce stuff for "needs" instead of "profits". But even the most socialist system have to take profits and economic costs into calculation. If all patients were profitable then this would not be a problem. But many patients are not so therefore you have to prioritize. And if your treatment is very costly and offer very few health benefits, then it is more likely that you will not get that help you need. Because we need to use scarce resources to help as many as possible. Help as much as we can at the lowest price possible. So the profit-motive will therefore also always exist even in a socialist healthcare system. And this is just an example of course. The same is probably true for much else. If you are profitable, then you will likely get the help you need.
1
The viking age is boring.
1
It was Stalins idea, not Polands wish.
1
@Aditya Chavarkar Read Hans von Lucks biography
1
The Eastern bloc was called the Eastern bloc and not the central bloc. The Warsaw pact countries are the east. And not just that because of the cold war. The second serfdom is also just an east European thing. Furthermore, if we should be silly and include Russia to the east as you suggest, then we also include the Azores and Iceland to the west. And when we do that we see that Poland fall into the right side of the center line. So it is an Eastern European country. Its funny to see how butthurt people are for being called an eastern country. Even orthodox Bulgaria who is not even bordering to a western country wants to be called central Europeans. Personally I do not consider "East European" to be a slur. But somehow do many in the east find it offensive. Only reason I bother commenting here is because I do not want any more post-modernist nonsense of deconstructing the language because some people are easily offended. Poles are not central Europeans. Estonians are not Scandinavians. Israel is not European. Simple as that.
1
@dantetre If I called you Japanese it would be factually wrong. So I don't call you Japanese because I want to keep facts straight. Nor do I call Uganda a European country. And I don't care if somebody cries that I don't respect their feelings. And I don't care if Poles cries if I do not consider them west or central Europeans, because Poland as a country is located on the eastern half of Europe. And it was even more so before 1945. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth included Ukraine, Belarus and parts of Russia for Christsake.
1